Previous daf

1)

(a) If a man says to a woman ...

1. ... 'Harei At Ishti;' 'Harei At Arusasi'; 'Harei At Kenuyah Li' - she Mehudeshes.
2. ... 'Harei At she'Li'; 'Harei At bi'Reshusi'; 'Harei At Zekukah Li' - she is Mekudeshes, too.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa lists them as two separate lists (and not in one list) - because he happens to have already learned the first set and listed it, when he learned the second set. And it is the way of Tana'im to leave intact what they already taught (so as not to confuse the Talmidim).

(c) What the following have in common is that they are contained in a list asking whether they are valid Leshonos of Kidushin or not: 'Meyuchedes Li'; 'Meyu'edes Li'; 'Ezrasi'; 'Negdasi' ... 'Lekuchasi'.

(d) The source for the She'eilah concerning the Lashon ...

1. ... 'Meyuchedes Li' is - the Pasuk in Bereishis (in connection with the creation of Chavah) "ve'Hayu le'Basar Echad."
2. ... 'Meyu'edes Li' is - the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with a Jewish maidservant, whom the master has the option of 'marrying') "Asher Lo Ye'adah."
3. ... 'Ezrasi' and 'Negdasi' is - the Pasuk in Bereishis (in connection with the creation of Chavah) "E'eseh Lo Ezer k'Negdo."

(a) We also ask about the Lashon 'Atzurasi', which might be a Lashon of Kidushin - because it might be a Lashon of 'Atzeres', implying that she is gathered to him in the house.

(b) It would be wrong to connect 'Atzurasi' with the Pasuk "Ki Ishah Atzurah Lanu" - because the word there has exactly the opposite meaning; namely, of being forbidden.

(c) The only one of all the above-mentioned cases that is actually resolved is - 'Lekuchasi', from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Yikach Ish".

(a) We query the Beraisa 'ha'Omer Charufasi Mekudeshes, she'Kein bi'Yehudah Korin la'Arusah Charufah' - on the grounds that Yehudah being the minority of Eretz Yisrael, the reason given would not justify accepting 'Charufasi' as a Lashon of Kidushin in the rest of the country.

(b) The amendment, which leaves this statement intact, but first quotes the Pasuk "ve'Hi Shifchah Necherefes le'Ish" as the source, unacceptable - because a Pasuk does not require the support of the people of Yehudah.

(c) The Beraisa finally reads 'ha'Omer Charufasi bi'Yehudah Mekudeshes, she'Kein bi'Yehudah Korin la'Arusah Charufah'.

(d) Earlier, we quoted a Pasuk in support of 'Charufasi' - because we interpreted a Shifchah Charufah as a woman who is half-Shifchah, hald-free (and Charufah, which then pertains to the half that is free, means 'betrothed'); but finally we ignore it in favor of those who interpret a Shifchah Charufah as a full-fledged Shifchah who is designated to a man (but not betrothed to him).

(a) Rebbi Yossi says in a Beraisa that if a couple were discussing divorce or Kidushin, and the man then gave the woman a Get or Kidushin, no words are necessary. According to Rebbi Yehudah, he must explain his intentions.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi, creating a problem - because if they had been discussing the divorce or Kidushin beforehand, then it seems obvious that, with regard to all the Leshonos of Kidushin that we queried earlier, she should be Mekudeshes (seeing as she would be Mekudeshes even if he said nothing)?

(c) Neither would there be any room for doubt (about the woman's being Mekudeshes) had they not previously discussed Kidushin - because how could she then possibly know what he had in mind?

(d) We resolve the previous problem - by establishing the queries when they had indeed discussed the issue of Kidushin prior to his statement. In fact, had he given her the Kidushin without saying anything, she would certainly have been Mekudeshes, and it is precisely because he used these questionable expressions when handing her the Kidushin that we now have doubts as to whether meant Kidushin, or that he merely wanted her to work for him.

(a) Shmuel and Rebbi Oshaya qualify Rebbi Yossi's opinion by establishing it when 've'Hu she'Asukin be'Oso Inyan' - meaning that they must be discussing the Kidushin right up to the time that he hands her the Kidushin, in order to obviate the need to say 'Harei At ... '.

(b) In fact, this is a Machlokes Tana'im, and follows the opinion of Rebbi. According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - she is Mekudeshes even if they were not discussing the actual Kidushin (or Gerushin) immediately prior to the handing over of the Kidushin or the Get.

(c) The woman is nevertheless expected to know that he is actually giving her Kidushin or a Get (even though he did not actually say so) - because we are speaking when (they may not have been discussing the actual Kidushin up to the last moment, but) they were discussing matters that were related to their planned marriage (such as the amount of her dowry, and how many fields he owned to sustain them.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel said - that if someone is not conversant with the Dinim of Gitin and Kidushin, then he should have nothing to do with them.

(b) Someone who does not know of Rav Huna Amar Shmuel's ruling 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi' - would also fall under this category.

7)

(a) A Get is not valid if he wrote on it 'Harei At ...

1. ... bas Chorin' and gave it to his wife - because this Lashon is appropriate for a Get Shichrur, but not for a Get Ishah.
2. ... Muteres le'Chol Adam' and gave it to his Shifchah - because this Lashon is appropriate for a Get Ishah, but not for a Get Shichrur.

(b) Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether 'Harei At le'Atzmech' is a valid Lashon for Gitin - or whether he might merely be exempting her from working for him.

(c) Rav Ashi replied with a Beraisa regarding a Get Shichrur 'Gufo shel Get; Harei Atah ben-Chorin, Harei Atah le'Atzmecha'.

(d) Now if this Lashon sets free an Eved, whom the master acquires completely - then it will certainly free a woman, whom a man does not acquire completely, from her husband's jurisdiction (and not just from working for him).

(a) According to the Tana of a Beraisa, if someone sells his Eved to a Nochri, the Eved goes free, but he requires a Get Shichrur. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies this - by restricting it to where he did not write 'Ono', because if he did, it would be as good as a Get Shichrur.

(b) Rav Sheishes defines 'Ono' as - 'le'che'she'Tivrach Mimenu, Ein Li Eisek Bach'.

(c) Rav Chanin (see Rashash, or Rav Chanin me'Chuza'ah) proves from here - that 'Ein Li Eisek Bach' is a valid Lashon of Shichrur (thereby resolving Ravina's She'eilah to Rav Ashi).

(a) Abaye says 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh, Einah Mekudeshes; be'Hana'as Milveh, Mekudeshes'. The reason that ...

1. ... she is not Mekudeshes in the Reisha is - because he did not give her anything that she did not have already (since the money of the loan was already hers to spend).
2. ... it is forbidden to do so in the Seifa is - because it resembles Ribis).

(b) We raise two objections to the suggestion that Hana'as Milveh means that he lent her four Zuzim in exchange for five. One, that there would then be no difference between this case and that of Milveh (seeing as he has not given her anything); the other - because then it would be *real* Ribis.

(c) We finally define 'Hana'as Milveh' - as a time extension (i.e. that he extended the time of the loan), which is not real Ribis - because he neither fixed it at the time of the loan (which would make it Ribis d'Oraysa), nor did he receive anything from her afterwards (which would make it Ribis de'Rabbanan).

(d) If he were to forego the loan altogether (and betroth her with 'Hana'as Mechilas Milveh') it would obviously be included in Hana'as Milveh.

(a) According to the initial version of Rava's statement, if someone says 'Heylech Manah al-M'nas she'Tachzireihu Li' with regard to a sale or with regard to Kidushin, the sale or the Kidushin is invalid - because in neither case, did the buyer give the seller anything.

(b)The third case belonging to this group is - Pidyon ha'Ben, where his son will not be redeemed.

(c) If he says this when giving Terumah to a Kohen, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah. He should nevertheless avoid doing so - because it looks like a case of 'a Kohen who assists in the granary in order to receive Terumah' (which Chazal forbade).

(d) This case resembles that decree - inasmuch as it looks as if the Kohen agrees to return it so that the Yisrael will give him his future Matanos.

(a) The intrinsic problem that we have with Rava's statement is - that 'mi'Mah Nafshach', if Rava holds 'Matanah al-M'nas Lehachzir Sh'mah Matanah', then all the cases should be valid, and if not, then his Terumah should not be valid either?

(b) In addition, Rava himself said that, in a case of 'Heylech Esrog Zeh al-M'nas she'Tachzireihu Li' - he has fulfilled his obligation, provided he returns the Esrog after use, from which we extrapolate that Rava holds 'Matanah al-M'nas Lehachzir Sh'mah Matanah'.

(c) The reason that he will not have fulfilled the Mitzvah, in the event that he did not return it, is - because it transpires that, retroactively, he stole the Esrog.

(d) Rav Ashi therefore concludes that in all the above cases, the Kinyan is valid, except for - that of Kidushin, because seeing as she has to return the money, it resembles Chalipin, which, as we learned earlier, is not a valid Kinyan by Kidushin.

Next daf